New Effort To Ban Dogs In WI Wolf Hunt; Legal Appeal Filed

Dogs should be banned from the Wisconsin wolf hunt, according to a court filing announced today by a coalition of humane society organizations, hunters and animal experts:

"Wisconsin remains the only state in the United States that allows the use of dogs to hunt wolves.  The controversial practice, opposed by wolf experts and animal welfare advocates alike, has been met with mounting opposition since the enactment last April of Act 169, the state law authorizing dogs in wolf hunting." 

The legal action follows votes of citizens earlier this week at 72 meetings statewide where a majority said "no" to allowing dogs in the already-controversial WI wolf hunt.

Legislators ordered the wolf hunt for the 2012-13 season after an absence of decades; a circuit court judge kept dogs from that initial season's hunt, but has since lifted his ban - -  thus paving the way for dogs to chase, confront and fight wolves later this year.

Here is the full text of the release:

For Immediate Release:  April 12, 2013

Contact: Jodi Habush Sinykin, HS Law (414) 507- 0004; Carl Sinderbrand, Axley Brynelson (608) 260-2472

Appeal Filed in Wolf Hunt Lawsuit. Without judicial intervention, serious risk of animal cruelty in Fall hunt

MADISON—Plaintiffs filed an Appeal Friday morning with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals from the final judgment entered by Dane County Circuit Court Judge Peter C. Anderson on January 16, 2013, regarding Wisconsin DNR regulations governing the use of dogs to hunt wolves. 

“We are appealing because we believe that Judge Anderson failed to address plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment holding DNR’s wolf hunting regulations--allowing dogs to hunt wolves without necessary safeguards--in violation of Wisconsin law prohibiting cruelty to animals, both domestic and wild,” explains Robert L. Habush, of Habush, Habush & Rottier, one of the attorneys representing a mainstream coalition of Wisconsin humane societies, conservation groups, hunters, and volunteer wolf trackers, “Judge Anderson also didn’t address our request for a permanent injunction against the use of dogs to hunt wolves.”

“Our plaintiff organizations, mainstream hunters, and team of wolf and dog experts are in perfect agreement—without this Appeal, there will be nothing to stop the bloodshed and state-sanctioned “dog fighting” certain to ensue this Fall when dogs are set on wolves without the common sense restrictions needed to prevent deadly confrontations between the two canine species,” states Jodi Habush Sinykin, another attorney representing plaintiffs in this matter.

Pam McCloud Smith, executive director of Dane County Humane Society and Board President of Wisconsin Federated Humane Societies, whose members include more than forty humane societies across Wisconsin agrees; “We need a judicial backstop here; the DNR’s inaction in the face of known risks and harm to animals is not in accord with longstanding Wisconsin animal cruelty protections or our values regarding humane treatment of animals.”

“Our appeal is necessary because only judicial intervention can protect the public interest from a state agency acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner;” explains Robert Habush, “Regarding dogs being used to hunt wolves, Wisconsin DNR’s rule-making process has been unduly influenced by lobbying—which has led to agency rules that ignore wolf biology, documented dog mortality, and mainstream Wisconsin ethics.”

Carl Sinderbrand of Axley Brynelson, LLP, added:  “Our appeal raises important issues regarding the function of Wisconsin’s state government and management of our natural resources.  The wolf hunting rules unfortunately reflect the elevation of political influence over science-based, responsible management of public resources.”

Wisconsin remains the only state in the United States that allows the use of dogs to hunt wolves.  The controversial practice, opposed by wolf experts and animal welfare advocates alike, has been met with mounting opposition since the enactment last April of Act 169, the state law authorizing dogs in wolf hunting.
    

WI Natural Resource Board votes against immediate wolf hunt

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board at its special meeting Friday voted 4-3 against establishing an immediate wolf hunt that would have begun no later than February 10.

What sank the motion was the board being told by staff and its legal counsel that an immediate hunt with quotas established without required consultation with Wisconsin's native tribal bands would likely not comply with a controlling Federal court ruling known as the Voight decision that affirmed tribal rights established by treaties with the US government.

Below is a running blog post I'd been updating for a couple of days:

FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2021

WI Natural Resource Board is now considering immediate wolf hunt

1:45 p.m. update - the Board is poised to open the hunt in February, but DNR staff is saying it has not yet had the required consultation on kill quotas with the native tribal bands required by a controlling federal court ruling.

12:25 p.m. update - the Board has closed public testimony which began at 8:30 a.m. and will reconvene its discussion at 12:40 p.m. 

It can take a range of options, from no action to approval of a wolf hunt that could begin before the end of this month.

--------------------------

I am Zoom-watching the Wisconsin Natural Resource Board's meeting on gray wolf hunting -

- as I noted this week, but I failed to emphasize that what is on the agenda is implementing an immediate wolf hunt.

Even though Wisconsin state law mandates a single annual hunt beginning in November, as was the case when previous hunts were legal between 2012 and 2014.

The entire matter is back before state regulators because the federal government removed in the closing days of the Trump administration the gray wolf from protected status.

The board oversees the DNR - and the agency does not support an immediate hunt, so it remains to be seen whether the agency position or the oversight board position will carry the day.

Walker appointees still make up the Board's majority. 

Testimony so far reflects long-standing differences in positions between hunting interests and legislative backers, like now-US Cong. Tom Tiffany, (R), and opponents from environmental organizations, and native tribal bands which consider wolves to be their brethren.

Since Wisconsin created its original wolf management plan decades ago there have been advances in awareness of the benefits wolves' bring into the wild.

These benefits have been made more relevant by climate change pressures on forests, water and wildlife, and also by wolves ability to control the spread of deer sickened by naturally removing diseased animals.

It has been pointed today by opponents that holding a rushed hunt right now with little advance notice and based on an outdated plan would trigger litigation a) by disregarding the tribal bands' treaty rights, and b) by disrupting and endangering wolf packs during breeding season.

All of which could fuel pressure on the Biden administration to renew protections for wolves by proving that states would implement wolf hunts based on outdated science and rushed and inadequate public input.

Further 1/22/2021 update:

I am pleased to add this statement by Atty. Jodi Habush Sinykin on behalf of Midwest Environmental Advocates:

To:          Wisconsin Natural Resources Board

From:  Jodi Habush Sinykin, Of Counsel, Midwest Environmental Advocates

Date:  January 20, 2021

Re:          Statement in Opposition to Mid-Winter Wolf Hunt 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony outlining the consequences of Wisconsin authorizing a rash and unsound 2021 wolf hunting and trapping season.  

With wolves only recently returned to state management, Wisconsin would be wise to take it slow and smart with respect to management of this iconic species.

Rushing to establish a wolf hunting and trapping season in the absence of an updated state management plan and wide public support will accomplish little, other than invite heightened controversy and litigation. 

In order for state governments like Wisconsin to prove their capability to manage wolves in the absence of federal protections, our state must first demonstrate a strong commitment to science-based and representative wildlife management in keeping with Wisconsin’s public trust obligations.

At the present time, our state is in no position to meet this threshold. The biological and social science underlying Wisconsin’s 1999 Wolf Management Plan is critically outdated. Wisconsin citizens and our state’s scientists have yet to be afforded the opportunity to provide substantive input. Consultation with the Tribes, required by law, has not been done. 

Indeed, state decisions pertaining to wolves, particularly state-authorized hunting and trapping seasons and management plans, must be the product of a democratic and transparent process to ensure that a range of representative viewpoints are recognized. 

We need only look to Minnesota, who has wisely invested the time needed to conduct an inclusive, science-driven, and transparent process to update their 2001 wolf plan before initiating a wolf hunting season. Wisconsin should do no less.

Act 169’s wolf harvest mandate already compromises the state’s and Tribes ability to manage wolves in a sustainable and socially acceptable manner. A premature move to reinstate wolf hunting and trapping season in Wisconsin underscores these actionable shortfalls and effectively disenfranchises Tribal nations within Wisconsin’s borders and non-consumptive wildlife users—a course of action that is sure to invite legal challenges at the national and state level.

Accordingly, we ask that members of the Natural Resources Board act judiciously, mindful of good governance and best science, and refrain from backing an immediate wolf hunting and trapping season in Wisconsin.

------------------------------

The ugly history surrounding Wisconsin's now-banned wolf hunt

[Updated, Sunday, Dec. 21, 12:02 p.m., from Saturday, Dec. 20, 3:42 p.m.] A few more words about the merciful and unexpected end to the grey wolf hunt in the Upper Midwest, including Wisconsin, ordered by a Federal judge Friday.

A summary post about it, with several links, here, and an update, as the Wisconsin DNR is dragging its feet communicating the new reality to Internet readers.

How the Wisconsin wolf hunt came into being three years ago speaks volumes about the victory of politics over science over public-interest conservation policy-making.

It's an ugly history about a reality that is at odds with the state's strong environmental traditions - - a partisan, politically-prescribed failure visible elsewhere in deliberately-weakened enforcement, fresh pollution and other abuses now routine across the state's waters, land and air since Republicans and their corporate sponsors took control of the Legislature and the rest of state government in the Walker era.

Update: Add to that the DNR's disinterest in moving quickly to post fresh information about the hunt's new Federal prohibition.

Remember that the wolf-hunt was implemented by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources quickly at the Legislature's behest, and in part by the agency through its "emergency" rule-making authority that shortcut obviously important assessment of all the issues - - a ploy that allowed the controversial use of dogs against wolves in the hunt and in pre-hunt, disruptive hunting dog training sought by special hunting-and-gun interests.

Dogs in wolf-hunting - - which puts both animals in fighting positions - - is a Wisconsin-only practice among the states.

Except there was no emergency facing the DNR, as noted at the time - - except if that's how you define it to please the conservative, pro-Walker special interests that pushed for the hunt with defined by little science and few restrictions.

In fact, Cathy Stepp, the conservative, ex-GOP state senator and developer Scott Walker installed atop the DNR to implement the "chamber-of-commerce mentality" he wanted running an agency previously known for science-based policy-making, had mocked, condemned and harangued against what she claimed on a conservative blog had been the routine unfairness and "hypocrisy" underlying rule-making during the Doyle administration.

Her words:

Those of you that haven't had the pleasure of peeking behind the scenes of our state agencies like DNR, Health and Family Services, etc...need to know how some of the most far-reaching policies come down on our heads.

The most crushing/controversial rules that businesses have to follow in our state are--most times--done through the "rule making process" of our state agencies. Without bogging everyone down with some really boring procedure talk, suffice it to say that many of these great ideas (sarcasm) come from deep inside the agencies and tend to be reflections of that agency's culture.

For example, people who go to work for the DNR's land, waste, and water bureaus tend to be anti-development, anti-transportation, and pro-garter snakes, karner blue butterflies, etc...This is in their nature; their make-up and DNA. So, since they're unelected bureaucrats who have only their cubicle walls to bounce ideas off of, they tend to come up with some pretty outrageous stuff that those of us in the real world have to contend with.

Remember also that to move the process along, compliant legislators were found to do what Big Hunting wanted.

Chief among the willing: State Rep. Joel Kleefisch, (R-Oconomowoc), a prominent, all-season hunter and husband of Tea Party activist and GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch.

Joel Kleefisch was so eager for a wolf hunt that, as he was also promoting (unsuccessfully) a sandhill - -"ribeye-in-the-sky" - - crane season, he;d said he could smell the wolf meat "marinating."

His words. From the legislator who'd earlier been a journalist at WISN-TV 12 in Milwaukee.

Amazingly, or perhaps not, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel swiftly got on board, editorially, buying the DNR's line and suggesting to readers that any problems created by the quick processes could be fixed later.

Among the consequences that rewarded the wolf hunt advocates at the expense of genuine, smart, science-based wildlife conservation and policy-making:

*  Wolf killing in all three seasons which was allowed to exceed by eleven the quotas set by the DNR and its supervising body, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board.

*  The DNR's intentional scrubbing of internal opposition by remaking its wolf-advisory committee, dismissing the opponents and giving nearly all seats to hunting proponents.

Also looking back at the editorial we find a companion op-ed by attorney and wolf hunt opponent Jodi Habush Sinykin, no doubt feeling her stance validated by the Federal ruling:

For years, we have worked together to safeguard the natural resources we hold dear, striving to ensure that the state - as the guardian of the public trust - adheres to science-based, ecologically sound management principles with respect to our shared waters and lands. This ethic must be applied equally to the management of our state's wildlife species because, without it, environmental stewardship falls prey to politics, a scenario that places all of our shared resources and natural places in jeopardy of mismanagement.

Case in point is the recently enacted wolf hunting and trapping law. Rushed through the legislative process with no notice to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wildlife experts, no input from the state's Wolf Science Advisory Committee and no tribal consultation, the law prescribes a first hunting season for wolves. The law is drawing significant opposition from scientists, mainstream hunters and conservationists alike, owing to an excessively long, 4½-month season that allows hunting of breeding females and to the array of hunting and trapping methods viewed as out of line with traditional values of fair pursuit and public safety considerations.

I'll give the final word about all this to WI DNR Secretary Stepp, using her own words with which she ended an infamous screed before Walker put her atop the agency, against what she said had been the unwise, politically-inspired misuse of rule-making by the DNR she despised before she got her chance to run it:

It's always the fine print in these things that have the heaviest hit. 

Just another example of the democrats game plan: Change the Rules to Fit the Players.

Shout it with me, now: HYPOCRISY, THY NAME IS DEMOCRAT.

1st-Hand Account Of How DNR's Advisory Committee Set 2014 Wolf Kill Quota

There has been extensive discussion on this blog about wolf hunting in Wisconsin. I count 121 posts since 2011, with a recent focus on how the State of Wisconsin sets its wolf hunting season kill quotas. 

Other subjects have included the only-in-Wisconsin permitted use of dogs in wolf hunting and legal efforts to ban the practice.

The Wisconsin Legislature authorized the wolf hunt in 2012.

One recent post was a guest submission by Douglas County wolf advocate Rachel Tilseth. She has submitted the account below of the May 19, 2014 meeting of the DNR's Wolf Advisory Committee meeting where its members made their 2014-'15 wolf kill quota recommendation.

The final kill quota determination will be made by the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, to which the DNR reports. The Board accepted the committee's 2012-'13 and 2013-'14 wolf kill quota recommendations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The division between science-based versus recreational hunting factions was very apparent at this meeting. Fortunately for wild wolves, the science and biology experts were heard.

The agenda was to cover the following:

Review of US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan (PDM) criteria

http://www.fws.gov/pdm/regs.html

Tracking report by Biologist David MacFarland

 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/volunteer.html

It was noted that more DNR personnel tracked wolves than in past years. Pro- hunter committee members stated several times that they receive numerous calls of wolves in areas not being tracked. DNR asked them to send in these incidents and they would investigate the sighting and add more trackers if necessary. DNR reiterated that this winter track survey is a minimum number, but not exact science. However, this is the best model for tracking wolves, to date.

Review of population data

http://dnr.wi.gov/news/BreakingNews_Lookup.asp?id=3195

This is the concern noted by the DNR biologists, that the quota must be lowered this years to maintain a healthy population of wild wolves. Discussion on the data revealing that pack size is smaller this year, down to 3.2 wolves per pack. And unfortunately, the breeding numbers were down. The majority of the committee was in agreement that the quota should be kept within a 12% or lower number in order to stabilize the population.

Adrian Wydeven suggesting that 40 to 180 number is best to maintain healthy wolf populations. There was sharp disagreement from Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association

and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, who are members of this committee. 

These members believe the 1998 wolf management plan calling for a maximum wolf population of 350 must be the objective goal. Other members of the committee explained that 1998 plan is out-dated and a new one would be written that takes in all of the scientific factors of today.

2014 season objective/quota considerations

Chair Dave MacFarland asked each committee member to fill out an anonymous questionnaire putting their highest quota and their lowest quota numbers and quota percentile on them. The chair then put the data gathered from the questionnaire into a chart. 

It was noted that one committee member abstained. This data showed the consensus of the committee to be 156. Committee members raised concerns for or against the quota, with the majority in agreement to accept the 156 numbers, except Wisconsin Bear hunters Association which wanted a 300 quota and maintained an objection to the 156 numbers. 

Review of population models Stenglein/Roberts

http://labs.russell.wisc.edu/vandeelen/people/jennifer-stenglein/

Quota recommendations

A consensus of 156 was approved and was then distributed to the zones.

Quota allocation to zones

Each zone was filled with numbers based on need for problem areas of wolf depredations or public safety. There was considerable discussion on Zone 6, which is part of the state considered unsuitable wolf habitat. Wisconsin Bear Hunters suggested a unlimited number of wolf tags with Timber Wolf Alliance objections.  It was decided that  a higher number of tags could be allotted in Zone 6 but not an unlimited number as requested.  

Dog training regulations

Due to time constraints, sadly this was not addressed. This was the most important topic for Wolves of Douglas County, (WODCW).

Hunting/trapping regulations

Lack of time tabled this discussion as well.

For the first time the chair allowed the public input portion of the meeting to take place before the quota was decided, asking them to be as brief as possible to allow for more discussion.

Public Input

The public input part of the meeting there were 9 pro-wolf attendees that made statements. I made the statement that we would like to see the wolves back on the endangered species list, in total agreement with both Humane Society of the United States statements from new state Director, Melissa Tedrowe and Minnesota Director, Howard Goldman.

Then went on to discuss WODCW‘s primary focus to remove the dogs from the wolf hunt because we believe than this is not necessary, and that public does not want dogs in the wolf hunt. Furthermore, that we will be conducting a statewide petition drive to remove the dogs from the wolf hunt. I requested that the dogs be removed from the hunt. Other pro-wolf commentators also gave their statements against the wolf hunt. It must be noted that this committee is stacked heavily in favor of pro-wolf killing interests. But it was made clear by other anti-wolf hunting commentators that a wolf hunt is not needed.  Interestingly enough, the only pro-wolf hunting advocates in the room, sat on the Wolf Advisory Committee.

It is important to note here that this is a middle-of-the-road number, the 156. It was clear that a few members of the committee, namely, Wisconsin Bear Hunters and Wisconsin  Wildlife Federation, refused to acknowledge any scientific justification on keeping quota within safe numbers for the health of wild wolf populations. I had heard about a lack of science being taken seriously by committee members, but what I saw amounted to a shameful lack of compromise from these two organizations' representatives on the committee.   

However, I do have to complement the DNR biologists, Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife, and Timber Wolf Alliance for holding the line in favor for  sound scientific data that supports wild wolves in Wisconsin. If given the vote on this issue, I would advocate for 0 quota, instead focus on non- lethal methods of wolf management. 

I would like to add that this is not over yet, that this is an advisory committee and that these numbers will be discussed at the June 25th Wisconsin Natural Resources Board meeting in Milwaukee. 

- - Rachel Tilseth is founder of Wolves of Douglas County Wisconsin, a wolf advocacy organization.

www.facebook.com/WolvesOfDouglasCountyWisconsin

"Wolf hounding is barbaric, in-humane and archaic and has no place in a civilized society." Rachel Tilseth 

WI resource board is now considering immediate wolf hunt

1:45 p.m. update - the Board is poised to open the hunt in February, but the DNR is saying it has not yet had the required consultation on kill quotas with the native tribal bands required by a controlling federal court ruling.

12:25 p.m. update - the Board has closed public testimony which began at 8:30 a.m. and will reconvene its discussion at 12:40 p.m. 

It can take a range of options, from no action to approval of a wolf hunt that could begin before the end of this month.

I am watching the Wisconsin Natural Resource Board's meeting on gray wolf hunting -

- as I noted this week, but I failed to emphasize that what is on the agenda is implementing an immediate wolf hunt.

Even though Wisconsin state law mandates a single annual hunt beginning in November, as was the case when previous hunts were legal between 2012 and 2014.

The entire matter is back before state regulators because the federal government removed in the closing days of the Trump administration the gray wolf from protected status.

The board oversees the DNR - and the agency does not support an immediate hunt, so it remains to be seen whether the agency position or the oversight board position will carry the day.

Walker appointees still make up the Board's majority. 

Testimony so far reflects long-standing differences in positions between hunting interests and legislative backers, like now-US Cong. Tom Tiffany, (R), and opponents from environmental organizations, and native tribal bands which consider wolves to be their brethren.

Since Wisconsin created its original wolf management plan decades ago there have been advances in awareness of the benefits wolves' bring into the wild.

These benefits have been made more relevant by climate change pressures on forests, water and wildlife, and also by wolves ability to control the spread of deer sickened by naturally removing diseased animals.

It has been pointed today by opponents that holding a rushed hunt right now with little advance notice and based on an outdated plan would trigger litigation a) by disregarding the tribal bands' treaty rights, and b) by disrupting and endangering wolf packs during breeding season.

All of which could fuel pressure on the Biden administration to renew protections for wolves by proving that states would implement wolf hunts based on outdated science and rushed and inadequate public input.

Further 1/22/2021 update:

I am pleased to add this statement by Atty. Jodi Habush Sinykin on behalf of Midwest Environmental Advocates:

To:          Wisconsin Natural Resources Board

From:  Jodi Habush Sinykin, Of Counsel, Midwest Environmental Advocates

Date:  January 20, 2021

Re:          Statement in Opposition to Mid-Winter Wolf Hunt 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony outlining the consequences of Wisconsin authorizing a rash and unsound 2021 wolf hunting and trapping season.  

With wolves only recently returned to state management, Wisconsin would be wise to take it slow and smart with respect to management of this iconic species.

Rushing to establish a wolf hunting and trapping season in the absence of an updated state management plan and wide public support will accomplish little, other than invite heightened controversy and litigation. 

In order for state governments like Wisconsin to prove their capability to manage wolves in the absence of federal protections, our state must first demonstrate a strong commitment to science-based and representative wildlife management in keeping with Wisconsin’s public trust obligations.

At the present time, our state is in no position to meet this threshold. The biological and social science underlying Wisconsin’s 1999 Wolf Management Plan is critically outdated. Wisconsin citizens and our state’s scientists have yet to be afforded the opportunity to provide substantive input. Consultation with the Tribes, required by law, has not been done. 

Indeed, state decisions pertaining to wolves, particularly state-authorized hunting and trapping seasons and management plans, must be the product of a democratic and transparent process to ensure that a range of representative viewpoints are recognized. We need only look to Minnesota, who has wisely invested the time needed to conduct an inclusive, science-driven, and transparent process to update their 2001 wolf plan before initiating a wolf hunting season.  Wisconsin should do no less.

Act 169’s wolf harvest mandate already compromises the state’s and Tribes ability to manage wolves in a sustainable and socially acceptable manner.  A premature move to reinstate wolf hunting and trapping season in Wisconsin underscores these actionable shortfalls and effectively disenfranchises Tribal nations within Wisconsin’s borders and non-consumptive wildlife users—a course of action that is sure to invite legal challenges at the national and state level.

Accordingly, we ask that members of the Natural Resources Board act judiciously, mindful of good governance and best science, and refrain from backing an immediate wolf hunting and trapping season in Wisconsin.

------------------------------

More later. 

Opposition Expanding: Oshkosh Newspaper Weighs In Against Proposed WI Wolf Hunt

I have posted a number of items on this blog about the upcoming wolf hunt mandated in Wisconsin by the Legislature that will take place beginning in the fall under rules created by the DNR.

Some of the on-line comments in response have wrongly and angrily suggested that wolf hunt opponents are caricatures of Madison liberals and Native American citizens.

One item I posted on August 15th about Native American tribal objections - - Opposition Growing Against Wisconsin Wolf Hunt - - provoked these anonymous comments, among others:

From "anonymous" - - Apparently everyone in Madison believes the native eco-stereotype in tuned with the earth mother and all that other happy horseshit, when in reality they are nothing but publicity hounds, pounding drums and disrupting whatever they can to appear important and knowledgeable due entirely to their racial heritage...

From "how can you be so clueless" - - You Madison liberals are truly clueless. The 10,000 plus people who put down good money for the chance to kill a wolf should tell you what Wisconsinites really think. The only thing Indians care about is cheating you out of your money at their casinos and gaining political power by pretending they have a right to that which they do not own and did nothing to produce.

It is best that you stay in your little imaginary world in Madison and type on your computer and stay away from the reality of northern Wisconsin.

From "real american" - - These Indians must be the most delicate, fragile creatures on earth; they are threatened by everything from killing a few wolves to someone digging up a few rocks. Real Americans, on the other hand, see no threats, accept no threats and have no threats. We kill off the wolves and then we bring them back and then we kill them again. We dig up the earth for iron and then make the hole in the ground into lakes and parks. We burn coal and oil and when we run out of that we just dig and find more. We spill a few chemicals in the river and then we clean it up. We don’t stop doing things for fear of the consequences, we just do it and when we break something we fix it. We cut down all the trees, and then we plant new ones. We nuke the shit out of cities and then we go in and plant flowers. We don’t sit around whining and crying about how we destroyed the earth, we just go about and build a new one and its no big deal. Stand up! Be strong! Be Proud! Be a real American! Get that wolf tag today.

So I was struck by the thoughtful tone and informative content at the top of an editorial in the Oshkosh Northwestern - - a Gannett chain paper, by the way, so hardly a lefty, underground freebie - - that raised some basic questions about the DNR's permitting dogs in the hunt.

Some organizations have earned the community’s respect and the right to be heard as authoritative voices on issues where their expertise and judgment have never been called into question.

One such organization is the Oshkosh Area Humane Society, which joined a chorus of voices across Wisconsin in speaking out against the rushed and ill-advised regulations for a wolf hunt this fall

“We received our first inquiry for four large dogs to be used for hunting wolves in the upcoming October wolf hunting season,” executive director Joni Geiger explained in an e-mail message to area media. “I find this appalling and I am ashamed Wisconsin would take such a giant step backwards when it comes to animal welfare.”

I'm not sure if criticism of the hunt, or a lawsuit filed against it over the issue of allowing dogs in the chase  - - a practice barred in all other states - - will have any impact before the hunt opens in October.

But I am glad to see that there are serious voices - - Dave Zweifel of the Cap Times is one - - asking important questions, as are experts supporting the lawsuit, according to the Journal Sentinel:

Several acknowledged wolf experts in Wisconsin, including retired DNR managers Dick Thiel and Randy Jurewicz as well as University of Wisconsin researcher Adrian Treves, filed statements warning against the use of dogs to hunt wolves.

In written testimony, Thiel said wolves would regard dog packs as a threat.

"Attacks will be swift and furious," wrote Thiel, former manager of the Wisconsin wolf program. "Dogs will be seriously injured and die, and wolves will be injured and die as they both fight by slashing out."

The DNR still has time to listen, and act.

Questions, Concerns About The 2014/15 WI Wolf Hunt Quota

[Updated, 12:45 a.m. Friday] The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and its Board, after hearing from a wolf advisory committee, will soon establish a kill quota for the upcoming 2014/15 wolf hunting season after having set quotas of 116 in the 2012/13 season and 251 in 2013/14.

Courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

I would expect the 2014/15 quota to be no lower.

So-called sporting lobbies, and backers of Wisconsin's bear-hunting season were among the strong supporters of the wolf hunt, and pro-hunting interests now dominate the advisory committee, critics note.

The lobbies are so strong that they have convinced the Legislature to provide, in a reimbursement program unique to Wisconsin, up to $2,500 per bear-hunting dog killed by a wolf - - even if the predation takes place in a declared wolf-caution area. Even to scofflaws.

The establishment of the wolf hunt through 2012 state law was especially controversial because legislators allowed hunters to use leg traps to snare wolves that are then shot in the head. 

Dogs are also permitted in the hunt's late stages - - a practice disallowed in all other states.

As the third wolf hunting season approaches - - the advisory committee meets next week in Wausau - -  concerns have been recently raised by critics on social media about whether wolf pack population data that will be presented to the advisory committee upon which it will use in ultimately making its 2014/15 wolf hunt kill quota recommendation is being vetted with neutrality and transparency.

So I asked DNR officials this week by email to describe how the advisory committee meetings will operate and also about how the wolf pack data has been collected and analyzed.

DNR officials said that all advisory committee meetings will be open to the public, provide for a comment period after the members' discussions are completed, and produce notes - - not electronic recordings - - to be posted on the committee's website.

(I will include at the end of this item the wolf advisory committee meeting schedules announced by the DNR for April and May.)

As to the issues related to the collection of the wolf population data, and whether it has been or will be available to the public prior to its presentation to the advisory committee, the DNR's Dan Kaminski and I have this dialogue over the last two days after I asked:

I gather that the volunteer trackers and DNR personnel come up with numbers of wolves in the state that are used in determining the hunt quota for 2014 that the advisory committee will recommend. 

Are those meetings or discussions to establish the number or that are used as the basis for the 2014 quota that will be put out at the April and May advisory committee meetings already completed? 

If not, will any further meetings or discussions to establish the hunt quota be open to the public for its input, and are there records of such meetings about the 2014 quota available for review?

To which Kaminski responded yesterday:

AprPM

The data collected through our winter track surveys, along with telemetry data and last year’s harvest data, will all be used to develop minimum winter counts.  Based on those counts, the Wolf Advisory Committee will analyze various harvest levels and how each of those is expected to impact the population going forward.  Again, this meeting will be open to the public and the public in attendance will be allowed an opportunity to speak, typically at the end of the meeting.  Furthermore, the Natural Resource Board will give final approval to recommended quotas and those meetings are typically open to the public and allow public comment.  Most likely, the wolf quotas will be addressed at the June Board meeting, although I can’t confirm this for sure as the agenda has yet to be determined.  For more information on the NRB meetings, please visit the following web page: http://dnr.wi.gov/about/nrb/. 

The minimum winter counts are not completed to my knowledge; they are currently being developed by our staff as we have just finalized the winter track surveys early this month or last month.  There are not specific meetings for developing these data or for crunching the numbers with our research scientists.  So in short, there are not opportunities at that level for the public to provide input on the data, nor are there any meeting minutes associated with the data development to provide.

So I asked yesterday afternoon:

And so I understand - - the process to gather and assess the count is a purely internal process, without any outside input - - other than the volunteers'? And is the same process as in past years?

To which Kaminski responded this morning:

This is the same process that we have previously used and is no different than how we evaluate population data for any other species (committees exist for deer, elk, turkey, grouse, fisheries, etc.).  Our research scientists run the statistics on the population data and generate various harvest levels and their expected effects which are presented to the Wolf Advisory Committee for review.  The Wolf Advisory Committee is comprised of various state and federal biologists from the DNR, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services, and US Forest Service, as well as public interests groups such as the Timber Wolf Alliance, WI Bear Hunters Association, Wildlife Federation, WI Trappers Association, and Cattleman’s Association, among others.  Also, from my understanding wolf data are independently reviewed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and other wolf experts, to ensure reliability and impartiality of our data.  

If you have concerns regarding the process, the WAC is currently in the process of revising the state wolf management plan and there will be several opportunities for the public to provide comment and input regarding wolf management in the state.  It is too early to know where the various aspects of the plan will be set but there will certainly be opportunities for the public to provide input during the process.  Once a draft plan is completed, we will post the plan online and provide a 30-45 day comment period.  We will also host public meetings around the state to allow the public to provide comments directly regarding the plan.  Once a final draft is developed, we will present the plan to the Natural Resource Board and provide an additional 30-day public comment period.  Furthermore, the NRB meetings will be open to the public as to give citizens another opportunity to provide input.  I encourage you to participate in this process as there will be multiple opportunities for you to provide comments on the plan.  Public input throughout this process is highly important and we are working to provide multiple opportunities for such to better inform our decision-making in the development of the new plan.  So far, we have completed a public survey which was sent out to randomly chosen citizens throughout the state to gauge public opinions on various aspects of wolf management; we are currently in the process of compiling those surveys.  A draft of the new plan is expected this fall with the final plan going to the NRB for final approval later in winter.

Here is the meeting information:

April 29 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

Wausau Howard Johnson Hotel, 2101 North Mountain Road

DNR Wolf Advisory Committee

David MacFarland

The committee will continue wolf management plan discussions

May 19 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m.

Wausau Howard Johnson Hotel, 2101 North Mountain Road

DNR Wolf Advisory Committee

David MacFarland

The committee will develop the 2014 wolf quota recommendation and continue wolf management plan discussions